Log in

View Full Version : Lassalleanism: the lesson of the EU elections



Die Neue Zeit
12th June 2009, 22:41
Now, I've been known to have my criticisms of No2EU, but this particular article reminded me of my not-to-distant musings on working-class social conservatism and economic leftism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/second-international-and-t104481/index.html):

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/48568,news,why-the-working-class-dumped-labour-left-and-voted-far-right-bnp-in-the-european-elections


With global capitalism in crisis and Europe in the midst of its worst economic depression for 70 years, one might think that it would be the parties of the Left who would have reaped the electoral dividend in last week's European elections. But with one or two exceptions, they fared badly across the continent.

If the European Left is to claw back working-class votes from the far-Right, it not only needs to oppose the neo-liberal model of globalisation, but to jettison its politically correct approach to issues like immigration and law and order and adopt policies which are popular with its core constituency - the working class.

Since the 1960s, as European Left parties have gradually become more middle class, they have gradually lost their link with their indigenous working-class voters. Just how out of touch the British middle classes are with working-class opinion can be seen by their utter bewilderment at the rise of the BNP.

For years, working-class concerns about immigration levels have been denounced as 'racist'. Working-class displays of patriotism - such as flying national flags -are regarded with deep suspicion.

[...]

The middle-class takeover of the Left has also meant a lack of focus on the basic problems which most concern ordinary people. Instead it's middle class issues and preoccupations - civil liberties, identity politics and human rights, which come to the fore.

[...]

It needs to oppose the free movement of both capital and labour - not on racist grounds, but because neither are in the interests of ordinary working people.

It has to acknowledge the innate social conservatism of most working-class voters and drop its aggressively liberal approach to social issues which anger so many. And it needs to become more openly patriotic - and not be ashamed of occasionally wrapping itself in the national flag, even if it does make smart media commentators like Martin Bright feel "deeply embarrassed".

[...]

Patronising ordinary people is not going to stop the rise of the far Right: unashamedly populist left-wing parties, putting forward policies that the working class actually support, might.

And a comment below by a poster to deflect charges of racism:


Multiculturalism is a stupid doctrine born of the inherent racism of the middle-class liberals who dreamed it up, suffering still from the white guilt of the end of Empire, but not having to live side by side with non-English speaking anti British occupiers. The working class are not by and large racist, most intermarriage happens in this class and mixed neighbourhoods are enjoyed by all. It's the immigrant ghettoes, particularly Muslim, which are the problem, created by NewLabour eagerness to appear broad minded.



Some general points regarding the possible revival of Lassalleanism in some form as a means of independent worker-class politics:

1)


Of course we shouldn't hunt for those who, for example, think women are inferior or believe the social order is created by God. But that doesn't mean we cannot criticize those who're conservative. We should rather educate them. And there is no greater teacher than the class struggle (instead of class collaboration, centrism and opportunism). We need tolerance and (symbolic) unity on the basis of social class and class struggle, not diplomacy and vagueness.

I agree completely with the points made above, but the post-1960s New Left has made it its mission to "hunt" for those holding socially conservative values.

2)

I have yet to write a systemic commentary on the immigration issue, but let's just say that many of those immigrants that are allegedly "stealing jobs" from the indigenous working class do so because the national governments encourage such underemployment:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/immigrants-scabs-and-t100826/index.html



Shouldn't the Left be more aggressive in pushing for the mandatory private- and public-sector recognition of professional education, other higher education, and related work experience “from abroad,” along with the transnational standardization of such education and the institution of other measures to counter the underemployment of educated immigrants?

After all, even if professional workers with stubborn petit-bourgeois delusions (not every prole with professional education has this delusion, of course) go over to the BNP with their "stolen job by educated foreigner" rant, at least the manual and clerical workers won't be as affected.

Re: private-sector recognition of international professional education

The track record of the private-sector is much better than the public as far as this is concerned, this is after all why outsourcing of technical jobs to places such as India, where you have a highly-educated population which you do not need to pay as much, exists.

3)

Re. the free movement of capital specifically and re. worker nationalism: I of course oppose nationalism, but nationalist sentiments amongst workers could be used in the short term as a two-edged sword. As part of the proletariat "rising to be the leading class of the nation, constituting itself the nation" (Communist Manifesto, Ch. 2), populist charges can be levelled against national bourgeoisies everywhere regarding their common financial cosmopolitanism - "industrial" (via outsourcing) or otherwise (look no further than to capital flight phenomena and discussions on half-hearted "Tobin tax" measures).

4)

Re. "multicultural ghettos," the left may wish to consider an alternative known as interculturalism, based on encouraging exchanges between different cultural groups (as is the case in Quebec), as opposed to mere cultural co-existence. This is facilitated by primary means of uniformity in language.

L.J.Solidarity
12th June 2009, 23:42
This could be from Jürgen Elsässer, a German ex-antigerman (pro-Israel) and more recently hardcore anti-imperialist journalist who announced last year that the left cared too much about "side issues" such as "the gay community" and that nationalism needed to be embraced to the point of forging a pact with the "German industrial capital" to fight against "Anglo-Saxon financial capital". Admittedly he seems to have taken the final step to Third Position (called "Querfront" in German) while the collection of quotes above doesn't go as far, but I think that's the way you inevitably start to go down by supporting patriotism and taking up anti-immigration positions.

Die Neue Zeit
13th June 2009, 01:01
Please read the fine text:


The institution of other measures to counter the underemployment of educated immigrants [...]

Against national bourgeoisies everywhere regarding their common financial cosmopolitanism

This includes the so-called "industrial" capitalists. Trust me: when I heard the Georgist Michael Hudson call industrial capitalists "industrialists," I laughed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Labor_theory_of_value#Steve_Keen_and_deprecia tion). I laughed even louder when I read a recent short bio of Keynes by a leftist (http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0509reusskeynesintro.html) (in there, the author says that Keynes referred to "entrepreneurs and capitalists," the former referring to industrial types, and the latter referring to the scapegoats).

Kwisatz Haderach
13th June 2009, 01:24
L.J., I don't think Jacob is suggesting that we take up nationalism or anti-immigration positions - he even said in his first post that he opposes nationalism. Rather, he's suggesting that we take advantage of patriotic or populist rhetoric to point out to the working class that the bourgeoisie does not serve national interests.

I would agree up to a point. I often argue against free-market nationalists by pointing out the self-contradictory nature of their political position: You can't support global capitalism and be a nationalist at the same time, because global capitalism works to erode national identity. However, I do not make this argument with the intention of winning over the nationalist to our side. I make it with the intention of driving a wedge between the global bourgeoisie and nationalist elements, so that they will fight each other and the Left can sit back and enjoy the fireworks.

Turning existing nationalists against global capitalism is a good strategy and I highly recommend it. Trying to win over those nationalists to our side by making concessions to their point of view, on the other hand, is a dangerous game. You might pull it off without falling into populism, but I don't think it's worth the risk.

Die Neue Zeit
13th June 2009, 01:28
Yeah, comrade. I watched on this morning's business news a discussion re. securities regulations to emerge from this crisis. The nation-states don't want a global securities regulator for the sake of "national independence," new regulations will spur circumvention attempts (finding loopholes and what not), and the various financial elements as usual are expected to make threats about taking their businesses offshore if there's "too much" regulation.

Vanguard1917
13th June 2009, 01:41
L.J., I don't think Jacob is suggesting that we take up nationalism or anti-immigration positions - he even said in his first post that he opposes nationalism. Rather, he's suggesting that we take advantage of patriotic or populist rhetoric to point out to the working class that the bourgeoisie does not serve national interests.


Why should workers care about their supposed 'national interests'? What ever happened to 'The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got'?



I would agree up to a point. I often argue against free-market nationalists by pointing out the self-contradictory nature of their political position: You can't support global capitalism and be a nationalist at the same time, because global capitalism works to erode national identity.


Is the suggestion, then, that workers, in opposing 'global capitalism', should be seeking to preserve their 'national identity'?

From an internationalist socialist POV, is the the erosion of national differences not a positive development?

Kwisatz Haderach
13th June 2009, 01:49
Why should workers care about their supposed 'national interests'? What ever happened to 'The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got'?
Of course workers shouldn't care about any "national interests." But some of them do. And among those, there are many who believe that economic liberalism can serve such "national interests." We need to point out the error of this line of thought, so that nationalists and free-marketeers will not join forces.


Is the suggestion, then, that workers, in opposing 'global capitalism', should seek to preserve their 'national identity'?
No, the suggestion is that we should say: "Look, capitalism is destroying national identity. We believe that's a good thing. If you don't agree, fine - but keep in mind capitalism isn't on your side any more than we are."


From an internationalist socialist POV, is the the erosion of national differences not a positive development?
Yes, it is.

Vanguard1917
13th June 2009, 02:04
Of course workers shouldn't care about any "national interests." But some of them do. And among those, there are many who believe that economic liberalism can serve such "national interests." We need to point out the error of this line of thought

In what sense is it an error? Nationalism and the free market agenda can and have gone hand in hand.


No, the suggestion is that we should say: "Look, capitalism is destroying national identity. We believe that's a good thing. If you don't agree, fine - but keep in mind capitalism isn't on your side any more than we are."


The key point here is tha nationalism does not exist in a vacuum; it exists under under certain social conditions. Capitalism produces nationalism. Since nationalism is a feature of capitalism, how can we talk of it as though it's somehow counterposed to it?

Die Neue Zeit
14th June 2009, 00:37
What about other social values as described above?